A bunch of suggestions

[MirageNL]

Here's a list of features I would like to see addressed:

VAB

• Parts should be listed numerically, not alphabetically. The X200-8 fuel tank should come before X200-16.
• Make part length incremental, specifically fuel tanks. There are a lot of parts, but there is no real difference between 2 FL-T400's and 1 FL-T800, so why not just make the length adustable?
• Make ladder lengths adjustable.
• Make building fairings more intuitive. The KSP1 method worked fine.
• Add a warning for blocked hatches.
• Address engine imbalance (also see fixing the methalox engines)
• Address command probe reduncancy. Charge and torque vary, but these can also be addressed with batteries and reaction wheels, so why all the variations? If it's just about looks, then just give them the same properties.
• Address communication part reduncancy. Why would I use a large dish when a small, radially attachable, deployable antenna has the same range?
• Add performance graphs for engines, air intakes and aerodynamic parts. Give each part a unique optimal working range.
• Add appropriate resource balances to staging info. (Air intake for methane engines, electricity for xenon engines, etc., adjusted for body, altitude and velocity.)
• Closing the body/altitude menu should not reset the staging info to minimal.
• Add more coloring options: eyedropper tool, favorites, hex/RGB codes.

Map view / Tracking station

• Show AP/PE values while editing maneuver nodes.
• Add ability to add maneuver nodes in other SOI's.
• Add ability to add and adjust maneuver nodes while paused.
• Add next/previous orbit for maneuver nodes.

• Add suicide burn countdown, or at least show time until impact.
• Show altitude when clicking on a trajectory position.
• Add icon for collission location on surface (adjusted for planet/moon rotation).
• Add alarm clock list, showing planned maneuvers, SOI changes and upcoming transfer windows.

UI

• Point-and-click nav ball as suggested by @BechMeister
• Dotted text font is difficult to read. Numbers 0, 6, 8 and 9 are especially hard to differentiate.

Additional parts

• Electric propellors, mainly to use on Duna and Eve.
• Methane powered propellors for Kerbin and Laythe.
• High-pressure optimized engines for Eve and Jool.
• Deployable wings.
• Deployable ramps.
• Inflatable balloons for oceanic and atmospheric buoyancy.
• Inflatable cushions for soft landings.

[BechMeister]

2 hours ago, MirageNL said:

Address communication part reduncancy. Why would I use a large dish when a small, radially attachable, deployable antenna has the same range?

AFAIK the whole comms system has not been implemented in the game yet - it is only there for flare atm.

I have been told that In KSP1 you have 2-3 types of antennas - transmitters, receivers and antennas that do both

So - we have yet to see what they are going to do with the antennas.. but right now you dont need antennas for anything

2 hours ago, MirageNL said:

Add more coloring options: eyedropper tool, favorites, hex/RGB codes.

This I have been missing too

2 hours ago, MirageNL said:

Add ability to add and adjust maneuver nodes while paused.

YES!

2 hours ago, MirageNL said:

Deployable wings.

This could be interesting too.

Edited February 8 by BechMeister

[Icegrx]

2 hours ago, BechMeister said:

AFAIK the whole comms system has not been implemented in the game yet - it is only there for flare atm.
 

Unfortunately from my reading on here, Commnet is enabled on KSP2, it just works differently than KSP1. 

Un manned vessels do require comms or they become uncontrollable. 

Relays and transmitters are currently the same thing, you nailed it.

there is no “line of sight” anymore sadly. Planetary bodies no longer block signals like in KSP1, and from my reading they do not intend to add it. Really bums me out actually.

 

[BechMeister]

Are you absolutely sure Ice? because so far they have not had it on the roadmap that they would implement a CommNet system.

Early in the game there were a bug were when every you had a probe core do a stage it would lose commnet. They fixed that somehow... But when I wanted to test of bodies obscured the antenna it did not.. and I have flown multiple probes without any antennas on it.

I think that the way they resolved the CommNet bug by just "turn it off" CommNet - I have not seen any discussions on the CommNet as of yet.. But you read my "blog".. so you must have read what I am talking about when I tested if antennas did anything?

all this being said. I have not done any Science as of yet. So I dont know if its then antennas are required there. But I can't imagine if its in that it's done in a way they had it planned. At least I know that the first thing I would get once out of Alpha is a mod that makes it necessary to build a propper CommNet etc.

But until we get the game closer to done and stable, im playing without mods to make the bug reports have less variables for the devs to crunch bugs   

[Icegrx]

It seems to me that probes have an innate antenna effect built right in or KSC projects a range that doesn’t require an antenna to receive.

I have not had a need for antenna at all in the Kerbin - Mun - Min system like you say. However when I got to Duna I started to have issues. My first probe got there beautifully, but once duna and kerbin drifted apart I lost signal. 

on future missions to Jool i have forgot to open my antenna a few times, and on the way there they have lost control until opened. 

it seems KSC might just be too powerful atm, and doesn’t require antenna to receive its signal. Once out of that sphere however, antenna and comnet do matter, yet signal does not get interrupted by planetary bodies. 
 

here if you look at bug #7 it starts to seem as if they are doing commnet differently this time around 

Edited February 8 by Icegrx

[Fizzlebop Smith]

I know this is probably on the forums somewhere but I want to be able to load ships up from different campaigns. 

 

It is currently incredibly cumbersome and tedious to bring ships over from a different campaign.

[Scarecrow71]

My thoughts on your post!  

On 2/8/2024 at 4:09 AM, MirageNL said:

VAB

• Parts should be listed numerically, not alphabetically. The X200-8 fuel tank should come before X200-16.
• Make part length incremental, specifically fuel tanks. There are a lot of parts, but there is no real difference between 2 FL-T400's and 1 FL-T800, so why not just make the length adustable?
• Make ladder lengths adjustable.
• Make building fairings more intuitive. The KSP1 method worked fine.
• Add a warning for blocked hatches.
• Address engine imbalance (also see fixing the methalox engines)
• Address command probe reduncancy. Charge and torque vary, but these can also be addressed with batteries and reaction wheels, so why all the variations? If it's just about looks, then just give them the same properties.
• Address communication part reduncancy. Why would I use a large dish when a small, radially attachable, deployable antenna has the same range?
• Add performance graphs for engines, air intakes and aerodynamic parts. Give each part a unique optimal working range.
• Add appropriate resource balances to staging info. (Air intake for methane engines, electricity for xenon engines, etc., adjusted for body, altitude and velocity.)
• Closing the body/altitude menu should not reset the staging info to minimal.
• Add more coloring options: eyedropper tool, favorites, hex/RGB codes.

• I disagree.  Alphabetically is the easiest way for the human mind to see and find things.  However, a compromise might be to have the option to switch between the 2?
• Procedural fuel tanks have been talked about to death here.  And the devs have indicated it won't happen.
• They need to make ladders seamless in transition from one to the next before this happens.
• 100% agree on fairings.
• 100% agree.  To take this a step further, add a warning about blocked parts that are movable (landing gear, as an example).
• The fuel tank imbalance has been talked about a lot lately.
• One of the things the devs wanted to do was to make players have to think about design choices.  I think that having a variety of different probe cores goes to that methodology.
• Again, this has to do with design considerations.  I also think that, at some point in the future, specs on a lot of these parts are going to change (but I could be wrong).
• 100% agree.  In KSP1, after some trial and error, you could identify which engines worked in which environment the best.  A graph or other output to show this would be keen.
• Staging information right now is broken (specifically dV calculations).  This needs to be fixed before balancing happens.
• See the above bullet point about staging.
• This has been asked about since the game dropped, and due to higher-priority bugs, you'll probably have to wait for a mod to do this.  In fact, there is already a mod specifically for storing favorite colors:

On 2/8/2024 at 4:09 AM, MirageNL said:

Map view / Tracking station

• Show AP/PE values while editing maneuver nodes.
• Add ability to add maneuver nodes in other SOI's.
• Add ability to add and adjust maneuver nodes while paused.
• Add next/previous orbit for maneuver nodes.

• Add suicide burn countdown, or at least show time until impact.
• Show altitude when clicking on a trajectory position.
• Add icon for collission location on surface (adjusted for planet/moon rotation).
• Add alarm clock list, showing planned maneuvers, SOI changes and upcoming transfer windows.

• Maneuver nodes, and their current lack of complete usability, have been discussed to death.  This includes things such as AP/PE markers.  In fact, I'll just blanket your first 4 bullet points with this one due to this.  We know the nodes are bad.  But, there's a mod that can handle some of what you're asking for:

• No comment on this, although I know a lot of people like the suicide burn option.
• They need to fix the pop-ups that don't go away first.
• There is already an icon indicating you are going to crash.  Does this not show up for you?
• This has been discussed to death since the game dropped, and I believe this is on the list of enhancements the devs want to add to the game.

On 2/8/2024 at 4:09 AM, MirageNL said:

UI

• Point-and-click nav ball as suggested by @BechMeister
• Dotted text font is difficult to read. Numbers 0, 6, 8 and 9 are especially hard to differentiate.

• I gotta read up on the request for point-and-click navball.
• Another thing that's been discussed ad nauseum is the fonts.  And the devs are working on this.

On 2/8/2024 at 4:09 AM, MirageNL said:

Additional parts

• Electric propellors, mainly to use on Duna and Eve.
• Methane powered propellors for Kerbin and Laythe.
• High-pressure optimized engines for Eve and Jool.
• Deployable wings.
• Deployable ramps.
• Inflatable balloons for oceanic and atmospheric buoyancy.
• Inflatable cushions for soft landings.

• This might fall under robotics, which the devs have stated won't be in the game prior to 1.0.
• Again, robotics.
• We may see some newer engines once we get to colonies.  I know we'll see new stuff once we get interstellar.
• Robotics.
• Robotics.
• Now this is an idea I can get behind.  I'm all for balloons, and even asked if we could get them for science (weather balloons).
• Another idea that I think has merit.

[MirageNL]

I know there are still many bugs and incomplete features to work on first, but those are obvious. It isn't really a priority list, just some problems and suggestions I would personally like to see addressed at some point.

I don't mean procedural tanks, just incremental length. Otherwise, listing from short to long would be more logical than the current alphabetical order where 16 comes before 8. (Change it to 08 for all I care.)

I want to know where on the surface of the body the collision will be. The end of trajectory icon doesn't account for body rotation.

[Lowi_Sace]

On 2/8/2024 at 1:09 PM, MirageNL said:

Make part length incremental, specifically fuel tanks. There are a lot of parts, but there is no real difference between 2 FL-T400's and 1 FL-T800, so why not just make the length adustable?

I did not get why they did not do that. Now we have to search a while to find the right part because there need to be multiple parts for every diameter. Also increasing part count on vehicle. Having adjustable fuel tanks will give players more customizability options, less searching for parts and a lower part count per vehicle. This should also be done for Cargo bays, SRBs, structural parts etc.

For feul tanks I would like a close to almost procedural approach. Being able to change the length (Smoothly) and the with on both ends stepwise (xs,s,m,l,xl). In that case players have complete freedom in feul tank designs and all the round tanks and adapter tanks could be in one part. Having a fuel switcher between Methalox and methane would also be nice. No need for making them separate, Could even be couples with a adjustable methane and oxidizer ratio.

On 2/8/2024 at 1:09 PM, MirageNL said:

Inflatable balloons for oceanic and atmospheric buoyancy

 

If implemented properly this would be really dope. It could be used to launch rocked from higher altitude or in case of blimps transport stuff between colonies (very handy on eve). But this seems like a post 1.0 feature, because it would probably be complex to implement properly

[BechMeister]

On 2/8/2024 at 11:44 PM, Icegrx said:

have not had a need for antenna at all in the Kerbin - Mun - Min system like you say. However when I got to Duna I started to have issues. My first probe got there beautifully, but once duna and kerbin drifted apart I lost signal. 

That explains why I have yet to encounter it - Since I have only had 1 probe leave Kerbin SOI. And that one had a huge antenna just for looks x)

I hope they will add a better CommNet system. It sounds like that the way its implemented now it might as well not have been there.